On Wed, 03 October 2001, "Barbara and Joe" wrote: > Notwithstanding Milton's efforts, it does seem that very little effort > is required to produce scores greater than 10. For example, > I ran 2^201+1 to 2^201+10^7-1 through Newpgen then pfgw in a couple of > hours and found a gap that scores 11+. Could I suggest to potential > contributors so Paul's soon to arrive webpage on the subject that : *cough* *cough* - if your version of PFGW is more than 2 months old, grab the latest version of it - I don't know why, but it is amazingly 6% faster accross the board (Microstar MT7 Turbo, Duron 900). > 1) additional criteria be added for qualification - this might > become more evident when the first lists are available. > 2) an exhaustive survey of 2^x+1 to 2^x+y-1 for > x >= 100 and y = 10^7, 10^8 or even 10^9. Au contraire. If there is something witty to be found there, then don't legislate it out, let it be discovered. Let it be exploited. Let those who can exploit exploit. If there are loopholes, then surely the smarts to discover them should be rewarded with fame (and fortune, and everything that goes with it). As long as no one expects Paul to update the lists in real time, then the rules can be as lax as anything. I wish I now had the CPU power to exploit this, and if I did, then I would wish I had the smarts too! Go for it. Go for it one and all. Nothing can be gained from this apart from progress (and I ain't 'fraid of that). Phil Mathematics should not have to involve martyrdom; Support Eric Weisstein, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com

Message 3093 from Yahoo.Groups.Primenumbers